β

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 16

Contents

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Both articles in the navbox are now linked to each other. (non-admin closure)feminist 12:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

replace with see also links, and then delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlfaRocket: The template is used on over 150 pages, it's not unused. The rest of your argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, on the order of "If he was innocent, why is he on trial?" The whole point of this page is to discuss whether or not a template is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, but anyone can nominate any template for any reason. It being listed here is not a reason to delete. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong keep - Yes, there is reason to have a specific template for Poland. This template has existed since 2004 for a reason. These are dedicated to separate topics, which should be obvious as there are no overlapping parameters in these two templates except image and caption! None of the fields in {{Infobox Polish coat of arms}} would make any sense in {{Infobox coat of arms}}. Likewise, almost all the fields in {{Infobox coat of arms}} are useless for {{Infobox Polish coat of arms}}. That's because Polish heraldry is different — this infobox is used for articles on heraldic clans, something unique to Poland, where a single coat of arms is shared by dozens of families, certain towns, etc. It's sort of similar to a Scottish clan (note this template includes a field for "battle cry"). Perhaps a better name could be {{Polish heraldic clan}}, but "clan" is not the best translation and the current title would never cause confusion for people working on heraldry articles. Templates should not be nominated for deletion simply because of their titles. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that would make even LESS sense. A heraldic clan is not a family. Did you even look at the template or look at it in use? There is no reason to merge this template with any other template. Also, when you propose a merger of a template, you are supposed to nominate the template creator. I see you did not do that in this case. Pinging @Halibutt: to alert him. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Wikimandia and Chicbyaccident:. While I generally support merging infoboxes, this one indeed wouldn't make much sense. As Мандичка pointed out, the scope of this infobox is different from what the other proposed alternatives do. If anything, Polish heraldry resembles a little the Scottish clans, so perhaps the {{Infobox clan}} could do the trick? @Piotrus, Poeticbent, and Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin:, what do you guys think? //Halibutt 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to merge them at all. This is a very small template that has been around since almost the beginning of Wikipedia, and I think it serves its purpose well. There is no reason to get rid of it and merge it with another template. Clans are sort of similar, but are not actually an equivalent. I was trying to find an example to explain how this is not appropriate to merge with Infobox Coat of Arms. (Also it should be noted that {{Infobox clan}} appears to be used only for Scottish clans, and thus it is designed for their usage (Gaelic titles, etc.) and uses the blue of the Flag of Scotland.) —МандичкаYO 😜 01:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Template:Infobox coat of arms was created on 20 January 2008 and expanded several times with repeat slots for images and repeat slots for captions ('middle', and 'lesser'?) as well as words and phrases in the syntax I cannot even grasp on first reading. I assume it meets its purpose, but it is also unique to western heraldry. Meanwhile, Template:Infobox Polish coat of arms was created over three years earlier, on 16 October 2004 for a similar but different purpose. There might still be room for improvement, for example, "herb" is a Polish word for the coat of arms and could be translated. Other slots are unique: i.e. battlecry, towns, and families in response to standards used in Polish historical documents. In my opinion, these two templates are not compatible with each other (at this time) and should not be merged. Poeticbenttalk 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Poeticbent, mostly - I do think there could be a merge but it would need to allow addition of all Polish elements to the main coa template, and should ensure no empty fields are shown on Polish COA. If this is feasible, I'd not object to merge, but I don't know if the work needed for this would be worthwhile. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how it would be worthwhile. The size of the {{Infobox Polish coat of arms}} is 865 bytes, not even 1k. It's hardly overloading Wikipedia's servers, and there is no overlap at all between these two templates. The only common field is image/caption. I'm sure this nomination was done in good faith but based on the original post, it was created only after looking at the template titles and not the templates themselves. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Keep - I don't get the point of merging the templates. They look very different as well and I don't see why there would be a need to start a debate on which look to keep. Everything has a historical background, but we don't merge every template with a historical version available. "Historical coat of arms" has a very particularly use. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it good for user of wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you think the templates are good for user [sic], but disappointed to see that you (yet again) have no substantive comments on the merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

merge, they serve the same functional purpose. minor styling differences can be resolved with parameters, or with some additional discussion over which styling is the most useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge per nom & Frietjes. No rational arguement for having two templates has been presented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Navbox with unclear scope, listing unrelated topics and thus failing WP:NAVBOX. Devasathan is the only true Hindu temple listed here. The Erawan Shrine isn't a temple, nor is it really of the Hindu religion. (It's actually more of a glorified spirit house mixing elements of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Animist beliefs.) The rest have not been functioning as Hindu temples for close to a millennium; they are primarily archaeological sites, and are already covered by the Template:Angkorian sites navbox. Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

AlfaRocket, please stop! (1) this template is used, and (2) this isn't a "cancellation page", this is a discussion page, and you aren't providing any useful discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. No objections; WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

AlfaRocket, "very unused" makes no sense, since there is no way it can be used less than zero. again, this is WP:NOTAVOTE, so just agreeing with someone else is not helpful. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Only other (non-odd) comment is in support of keeping the template, and while I'm not entirely sure about the navbox in the middle of the discussion (i.e. what it's doing there or how it's relevant to the template being discussed) it seems like the nominator is no longer wanting to delete. NPASR from someone else and/or the OP. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree the number is arbitrary, and in its current form the template does merit deletion. However, I wonder if it would be an option to replace this with some sort of template of the best strike rates for bowlers in tests (based on the lists in the Strike rate article)? For example, the fact that George Lohmann has the best test strike rate is highlighted in his article and such a template could be useful for navigation. Dunarc (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dunarc: Thanks for your suggestion. Could you please propose which form of template we should have? It was created by me 2 years back but now I think it is not useful. Any good suggestion could make it useful. Greenbörg(talk) 08:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Greenbörg: Thanks. I'll have a full think and get back to you. Dunarc (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Navbox with link to just one article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).